Re: WG Conflict Clarity

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On June 28, 2019 at 3:17:17 PM, Michael Richardson ([e-mail])
wrote:

Michael:

Hi!

Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> - Chair Conflict: to indicate other WGs the Chairs also lead, or will be
> active participants in the upcoming meeting

> - Technology Overlap: to indicate WGs with a related technology or a
> closely related charter

> - Key Participant Conflict (e.g., presenter, Secretary, etc.): to indicate

> WGs with which key participation may overlap in the upcoming meeting

Given two WG, "A" and "B" with chairs "A1", "A2" and "B1" and "B2"

If A1==B1, that's clearly a chair conflict, as the chair can't be in both
places.

If A1 is a Key Participant in group B, what kind of conflict is that?

Is it a Chair Conflict for A and a Key Participant conflitct for B?

That is how we intended it.

...

Would Technology Overlap conflicts be explicitely stated in WG charters?
(Often they say, "will coordinate with WG XYZ" already)


I think that is a related but independent question.

There may be some indication in the Charters of necessary coordination.
But that is not a requirement to call out a conflict, and the indication of
the conflict is not meant to be confirmed in the Charter nor to trigger an
update.  As an example, sometimes a WG will discuss a specific topic that
may benefit from expertise from a specific set of people; I think that
could be expressed as a Technology Overlap for that session.

Thanks!

Alvaro.